The ABCs of Suppression

The Heart of the Argument

If you’ve read the opening essays for Dissident Conservative, you know that my main mission and beat concerns the topic of suppression. More specifically, my focus is on the capital-S Suppression of our time, that of the Covid-vax harms story, a story which I believe involves, at a minimum, a million deaths across the world.

More specifically still, while the Legacy media are the central villains in this, what I mostly write about is the way my political comrades the conservatives are also suppressing the story. Nearly all, around 90-98%, of conservatives working in media--even in supposedly “alternative” media--or in national-level electoral politics, are guilty.

To explain what the Suppression is, and why the conservative participation in it is especially troubling, I could refer you to back to my most important pieces on it for the group substack PostModernConservative, such as, “Adjunct Suppressors,” “The Purpose of Open Journalism and Free Speech,” “The Rationales of the Knowing Suppressors, Parts One, Two, and Three,” “Eric Metaxas: Not a Suppressor,” and “What Suppression Is Not,” .

Now these are fairly lengthy essays with multiple parts, and that could lead you to think that it is a hard topic to understand; however, it is easy enough once you’ve made the initial moves. It is merely a topic that’s unexpected, that has to be connected to several other surprising and shocking revelations of the 20s, and that demands a few items of new vocabulary. And of course, it is one which has been deliberately muddied by various plays of PR and propaganda. So yes, while it did take me more than a few essayistic explorations to become sure about it basic outlines, the nature of this suppression, and of suppression generally, may be readily grasped by anyone.

Definition

Suppression is the refusal by an editor, journalist, pundit, or politician, to publish or discuss content relating to a story of major public import, in violation of their duty to serve the citizenry. Examples I have offered of other stories suppressed in our time include Biden’s incompetency, and the real data on transgender issues. Examples I have offered of stories suppressed in the past include the orchestrated Holodomor famine in 30s Ukraine, and the full measure of the injustices required to maintain the American system of segregation.

While the terms “censorship” and “suppression” are often used interchangeably, they are better used to designate distinct actions: the former indicates government action seeking to prevent publication of a story (or to punish those who did), and the latter indicates the perfectly legal choice of journalists, pundits, and politicians, to refrain from covering or discussing a story of major public import. The former violates the letter of many a liberal democratic constitution, and especially the American one, whereas the latter violates their spirit; that is, the latter violates a duty which every liberal democracy places upon its journalists and leaders, though it would be impractical and harmful to seek to legally enforce the performance of this duty.

The ABCs

Thus, the essence of the Suppression, as it pertains to conservatives, is simply this:

A.) All supporters of liberal democracy must support the practice of open discussion of major issues which effect the public, as well as the kinds of journalism and political leadership which foster this.

B.) To suppress the Covid-vax story is to set aside this principle.

C.) Nearly all conservative media, politicians, and pundits are engaged in this suppression, in cooperation with the Legacy media.

D.) Thus, they are betraying one of their core principles, and must repent.

The Basic Reasoning

Who would disagree that suppression in a liberal democracy is a great evil?

To say the same thing, who would disagree with the following statement, one which sums up the view of the U.S. Supreme Court?

[In the Court’s view] …the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech and press…was meant to protect and facilitate the achievement of rational ends by communication among free and ordinarily intelligent people. …[Additionally]…as the Court…often repeated, there is “a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open…” Francis Canavan, Freedom of Expression: Purpose as Limit, pp. 6 and 5.¹

What Canavan conveys there, with the help of the Justices, is that the American political tradition has long held it would be wrong for the government, or for the press, to kick public reasoning out of whole areas of public policy and concern. It of course accepted some drawing of the curtains over military secrets and foreign-policy negotiations, but that does not alter the core principle expressed.

Human nature being crooked, it was predictable that at times, and regardless of the First Amendment, an evil consensus to not talk about a certain issue, such as the full consequences of segregation, would keep a topic the public really ought to be being informed about, out of nearly all papers, broadcasts, and politicians’ discussions.

But who would agree now that it was excusable? Or who would agree now, to take my other big example of past suppression, that it was fine for Walter Duranty, The New York Times, and surely many other bigwigs in the media, to have suppressed the reports of Stalin’s Holodomor?

And so we come a similar rhetorical question: who says that it is presently excusable for our media and politicians to suppress discussion of the Covid-vax harms?

One can insist all one wants upon the differences between the Holodomor and the silent mass-death-event of our time, in terms of the numbers of deaths, of the intention and culpability involved, and of the gulf between a leader like Stalin and one like Fauci, but nonetheless, in terms of the duty to foster open public discussion our journalistic and political leaders ought to be bound by, the principle is the same.

Cleary then, if a journalist or politician neglects the Covid-vax story, at least without being convinced that there is in fact no story there, he is revealed to be someone scandalously ignorant of, or worse, a traitor to, a basic principle of liberal democracy.

The Burden the Evidence Imposes

What was just said naturally raises this question: could anyone be sincerely convinced, as late as 2025, that there is no story in the dissident claims being made about the Covid-19 shots?

As for the evidence, see, if you need to, a summary piece by Steve Kirsch, or the extensive footnotes I provided in this piece, back in 2023. But as for how, in the face of all this, a person could not be at least shaken about the case for these vaxxes’ safety, well, that is a question best left for mind-reader psychologists, if any exist.

And yet, since we are concerned with the Suppression here, this question about how any typical citizen’s mind has been handling the Covid-vax safety debate must give way to the one about what those charged with the duty of informing the public have been up to.

How could it be possible that their confidence was never shaken?

Should we listen to those of our journalistic or political class who might now might plead their sincere ignorance of the dissident evidence over these several years, or, of their having been sincerely convinced by the official apologists for the mRNA shots?

Perhaps we must initially accept any half-confession, but what we must insist upon is that it was their job to know about this. If they sensed that a good portion of the public wanted the dissident claims dismissed, the better to suit its comfort and denial, it was their duty to have said and written, “Sorry, oh public, but those of us who have looked into this, even cursorily, are shaken. The dissident case is stronger than expected, and we do not yet see how its main arguments and evidence might be refuted. Nor do we understand why the spokesperson scientists for the major agencies are so certain there is nothing to it. We hope we will come to understand what they do, but in the meantime, we are obliged to inform you of our own uncertainty about this debate, and to lay out the claims being made by the dissident side.”

They have yet to say anything like this!

And there is no excuse for them in the idea that the debate about the Covid vaxxes’ safety remains unsettled.²

For that is a debate in a field of medical science, whereas the question before us, whether a suppression is happening or not, properly belongs to the fields of political science and journalism studies. And in deciding it, the burden of proof is not upon the dissidents, at least not once they have shown that the evidence for their claims is voluminous and multi-faceted, which I insist they have since early 2022.

Rather, the burden of proof is on the editors, journalists, and politicians who continue to not discuss the story.

It would be one thing if they suspected the claims were false but then did due diligence to lay out the grounds of their suspicion. But the usual cheap move they deploy instead—when they are not just staying mum—, of very briefly quoting a CDC or FDA spokesperson saying that the dissident experts are untrustworthy and ignorant, is not investigation of the claims, and not even basic-level reporting. When you do actual reporting of a public controversy, you name the persons making the claims on both sides, and you tell your readers what those claims are.

So, if our leaders in journalism--and in politics--are to justify their behavior, they must be able to show that most of the top dissident experts have been repeatedly caught being egregiously wrong. More precisely, they must be able to show, in detailed refutations, that major dissident claims, such as the Underreporting Factor for VAERS being 40x or 30x, or that hundreds of embalmers have been regularly finding never-before-seen clot-structures in the deceased, or that the autopsies done on the Arne Burckhardt model are reliable, are false, or at least, radically unlikely.

We’ve all heard the expression “Put up or shut-up.” The case here is actually the reverse: unless the suppressors can right now put up evidence showing—not merely asserting on the basis of authority--that the dissidents’ main claims of widespread Covid-vax harms are almost certainly false, they are morally obliged to open up their mouths and their publications.

They must cease this vile farce of pretending this story is not out there. Elementary civic duty requires that they deliver the debate about the story to the citizens they claim to be serving.

More obviously follows from this, but these are the ABCs.

Walter Duranty, once decried by all conservative leaders for his sin of preventing media coverage of Stalin’s atrocity-famine, but who, evidently, is now admired by them in secret. On him and the Holodomor, see the vids below on the film Mr. Jones.

1. The quoted sentence is from New York Times v. Sullivan,1964. For more on Canavan’s book, published in 1984, see my “The Purpose of Open Journalism and Free Speech,” linked above.

2. Note my use of “the idea that.” It goes without saying that in fact, this main debate was long ago settled for anyone who really considered the evidence: they are radically unsafe.